Saturday, April 15, 2017

The Fruit of Evolution: Abortion

I Feel Sorry For Her Child

Ideas have consequences and to see the fruit of evolution we need look no further than abortion. If we were not created by God—if life arose by chance—then why should there be a right to life? But as the truth about evolution and abortion becomes more apparent, evolutionists become increasingly ugly. In this video, a hostile crowd expresses righteous indignation at the passage of laws making it less convenient to murder babies. A young lady sparks the anger with a question for her elected representative about why he thinks he has the right to abridge her right to murder. This is the fruit of evolution.

15 comments:

Amen to the pro-life defence here. Pro-lifeism was the first moral aggressive cause of my life about justice. Long time ago now.Abortion is not exactly like evolution/creation contention.abortion is a intellectual contention and not a moral one for almost all peiople. (although i think Satan is behind the deception of pro-choicers but still they act out of moral conviction).i think Christians, protestant or catholic, are more persuaded the fetus is a child at conception because of the opinion of the soul existing and existing at conception.yet pro-lifers would say no to this and stress the biological evidence for the fetus being a kid already.its hard for a pro-choicer to see a child has already arrived in a bedroom after the couples successful sex leading to conception.they think the brain etc needs to grow before a human has arrived.its not unreasonable but wrong.Pro-lifers should by now do better to crush the moral claim of a pregnant woman control over her continuing in pregnancy.by now the pro-choice side should have to basae their position on a complete rejection of the humanity of the fetus. they should not still be saying freedom of body control.pro-lifers have not forced submission on this yet.We should not say its murder because they don't mean to as they don't believe its a child yet.We should be the dominant ones in insisting its about the fetus humanity. Its a special case of one person being in another. Don't blame me , it was like that when i got here.in fact it really does come down to the matter of the human soul. Both sides try to say thats not the point.yet its a point.

Robert Byers: (although i think Satan is behind the deception of pro-choicers but still they act out of moral conviction)

If this is the case, it has some interesting implications. If Satan is trying to influence humanity so as to increase the number of abortions, and assuming it is the case that a soul is endowed at fertilization or implantation, then it would strongly suggest that Satan is trying to ensure that the greatest possible percentage of souls end up in Heaven.

P1: 100% of humans who are conceived but die before birth end up in Heaven.P2: <100% of humans who are conceived but survive to adulthood end up in Heaven. (Matthew 7:13-14 and others make it fair to assume that it is not only <100% in total, but also at any given time, and that it’s probably more like <50%)C: Therefore, if the percentage of humans who die between conception and birth rises in relation to the number of humans conceived, the total percentage of humans of humans who end up in Heaven rises as well.

Depending on what the actual percentage in P2 is, the difference could be dramatic. If it’s the case that you have to be a Christian to end up in Heaven, and Christians make up about a third of the population, then it must be that <33-ish% of people who experience an adult life on Earth end up in heaven. If you have to be a ‘real’ Christian, and not just someone who uses that label, it could be <5%.

If Satan has even a modicum of intelligence, he would realize that raising the percentage of humans who die before birth (or adulthood) without lowering the conception rate would increase the percentage of humans who end up in Heaven, possibly by an order of magnitude. But if you increased the percentage of humans who died before birth while also increasing the conception rate, by, say, encouraging more promiscuity in society, then the net increase in percentage of Heavenbound souls could be staggering.

P1: Increasing both promiscuity and abortion leads to a greater percentage of humans ending up in Heaven than would otherwise occur.P2: Satan is influencing humanity to increase both promiscuity and abortion.P3: Satan’s actions lead to a greater percentage of humans ending up in Heaven than would otherwise occur.

If Satan can influence humans to carry out his plans as you suggest, what other manipulations might he try? How else could he raise the number of eggs that get fertilized, without necessarily increasing the instances of sex, and more importantly, how can he do this without raising the birth rate? He’d have to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies. How might he accomplish this?

He could find malleable humans and trick them into doing things like:

1. Making it more difficult for for women (especially young, poor women) to have access to birth control. (as birth control use increases, abortion rates drop)2. Promoting the idea that unwed sex is ‘sinful’ so that birth control is seen as a taboo, even if it’s available. 3. Replacing genuine sex education with ‘abstinence only’ programs, which have been demonstrated to increase unwanted pregnancies rather than decrease them.

Now, surely it would be difficult to find people doing such horrendous things, but if you did, wouldn’t it be fair to conclude that they were carrying out the will of Satan? A consequence of believing that Satan is trying to deceive more people in to being pro-choices is that if true, it means that Satan may be responsible for more souls ending up in Heaven than any (or every) evangelist who’s ever lived.

Now, I I don’t actually believe that Satan exists or that zygotes have souls, but as Cornelius said, ideas have consequences. I’d be curious to know if anyone who does believe the things stated in the premises sees a flaw in the logic. If the premises are true and the logic’s sound, the conclusion (however bizarre) has to be true as well.

(If you’re an annihilationist or a universalist, it seems that Satan is trying to ensure that souls end up in Heaven with as little suffering as possible.)

Those who murder children, or support those who murder children, without repenting: go to hell. Not to mention that widespread abortion lowers the moral standards of society in general, increasing the chance that someone will be seduced by evil and go to hell.

My first version of this post contained an error on my part, so it has been modified and resubmitted

John Lamb: “Unbaptised babies do not go to heaven.”

In my first draft of the first premise 1, I actually did have a parenthetical saying that this should be uncontroversial among most Christians, but I thought, “Sure, while there may be a few isolated psychopaths who might believe that having billions of human souls’ first conscious experience be that of waking up to everlasting torment is the way a just God would set things up, it wouldn’t be fair to imply that they’re numerous enough to be representative of Christians in general,” so I left it out. I thought, surely no one who is both literate and knows how to operate an internet connected device could advocate such a scenario, (in the sense that it’s true, or that it’s good), so I deleted it. It appears I was too hasty, and too generous. More on this later, but I’d be curious to know if this is a common belief among Christians. (I’m making a guess that you’re Catholic, whereas my background is Protestant. Is this a common Catholic belief, or it is as fringe as it should be?)

“Those who murder children, or support those who murder children, without repenting: go to hell”

That doesn’t change the math, because we’re talking about what Satan would do if he wanted to ensure the highest percentage of souls end up in heaven. The ratio of abortions to women who have abortions has to be greater than 1 to 1, and for doctors who perform them, the ratio could be 100s to 1 so it’s still large a net gain of heavenbound souls, even if the perpetrators go to Hell, given P1.

“Not to mention that widespread abortion lowers the moral standards of society in general, increasing the chance that someone will be seduced by evil and go to hell.”

Well, first, citation needed. It’s been observed to often be the case that when abortion is legalized, the crime rate subsequently drops in that society over a number of years, and conversely, when it it prohibited, the crime rate rises. Correlation does not mean causation, but there is a plausible explanation as to why this would be. I don’t know that you consider a lower crime rate as metric of a rising societal ‘moral standard’, but I don’t see how you’d see it as a sign of a declining one.

But I’m confused; most pro-lifers tell me that the legalization of abortion is a result of a moral decline, not a cause of one. Which one do you think it is? You’re also implying that the odds of a particular soul getting into heaven are dependent upon the circumstances in which it is born. (That if you’re born into a bad society, you’re less likely to get to Heaven than if you were born into a ‘good’ society.) Is this what you’re saying?

Now I know you don’t grant P1, so the conclusion doesn’t follow for you in particular. But I’m betting (and hoping) that you’re in the minority, because I think waaaay too highly of Christians to think that your deranged view of souls is representative of what most of them think.

Are there any other Christians (or theists) who agree with John that babies (and presumably fetuses & zygotes) who die before baptism don’t go to heaven? (Cornelius? Robert?)

Still misrepresenting the other side after all these years, eh Cornelius?

I’m curious - is this misrepresentation intentional or unintentional? - Are you intentionally misrepresenting the pro-choice view in order to make a point, or do you genuinely not understand the pro-choice position?

You’ve packed a lot of misconceptions (or deliberate misrepresentations) into those few sentences, so let’s take some things one at a time.

“A young lady sparks the anger with a question for her elected representative about why he thinks he has the right to abridge her right to murder.”

If I say: “The student asked the teacher if she could be excused from class,” That’s a different way of saying: “The student said to the teacher: “May I be excused from class?”

However, I doubt that you’re trying to say: “A young lady asked: “Why do you think you have the right to abridge my right to murder?”” - because I’m sure you realize that that’s not what was said - you’re not just paraphrasing it to make it sound worse, your ascribing to her a position that she neither advocated, nor probably would advocate even if she’d been talking about abortion.

Generally, no one who is in favor of allowing abortions (at whatever point of development) considers those abortions ‘murder’. That label is almost exclusively used by the pro-birth camp. People who are pro-choice aren’t pro-choice because they’re ok with murder, they’re pro-choice because they don’t see abortions *as* murder.

If you know the above, then you’re extremely disingenuous in the post. If you didn’t know it, you are now informed, problem solved. If you don’t believe pro-choicers are genuine in describing their position - that they agree with you in secret that abortion is murder and are lying when they try to explain otherwise - why can they not declare that *you’re* not genuine in describing your position? If they accuse you of only being against legal abortions so that women are punished for having sex, what recourse do you have?

“If we were not created by God—if life arose by chance—then why should there be a right to life?”

This is a non-sequitur. Everyone I’ve ever talked to about the subject has generally agreed on the concept of right to life, (in the negative sense, at least) no matter their worldview - Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jewish, or other. The question isn’t “Does a right to life exist?” but rather, “To what does the right to life extend to?” and “How does right to life weigh against other rights?” The idea of a right to life doesn’t depend on theology, it logically flows from the fact that If I don’t want to be unjustly killed, It’s preferable to live in a society where unjust killings are prohibited.

“I feel sorry for her child.”

What child? Did you even watch the video? She never mentioned being pregnant or wanting an abortion, she was asking why Flake was a proponent of revoking Title X funding from Planned Parenthood, which would have the effect of making things like birth control and cancer screenings harder for low income women to acquire. Abortions do not qualify for title X funding in the first place, so she was specifically *not* asking about abortions.

So you take the question: “I’m wondering … why it’s your right to take away my right to choose Planned Parenthood…” and turn it into: “I’m wondering why you think you have the right to abridge my right to murder.” It’s like you just make up what you want your opponents to say and argue against that. I don’t know why I expect anything different at this point, but It’s still frustrating to read. It’s just ironic that you claim the moral high ground while at the same time showing such a disregard for honesty.

Do you genuinely not see this as disingenuous, or is it justified because it’s “Lyin’ for Jesus?”

To make sure that I understand your position, do you consider abortion ‘murder’ (or immoral for some other reason) at *all* stages of development from fertilization onward, or just after a certain point?

Everyone I’ve ever talked to about the subject has generally agreed on the concept of right to life, (in the negative sense, at least) no matter their worldview - Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jewish, or other. The question isn’t “Does a right to life exist?” but rather, “To what does the right to life extend to?”

I'm afraid that's not good enough Derick. Your "right to life" is not a "right to life" if it doesn't extend to all people. This is how evolutionists think. You can try to whitewash it all you want, it won't work. Right to life means it extends to all people, not just to certain people who fall into the currently favored category.

Cornelius: “I’m afraid that's not good enough Derick. Your "right to life" is not a "right to life" if it doesn't extend to all people. This is how evolutionists think. You can try to whitewash it all you want, it won't work. Right to life means it extends to all people, not just to certain people who fall into the currently favored category.”

I do extend the right to life to all people. Where did I indicate otherwise? And so we’re clear (and we possibly agree on this) I acknowledge negative rights - you have a right to not be unjustifiably killed, not necessarily a right to be kept alive.

(And it’s a side point, but it’s not actually the case that you don’t have a ‘right’ unless that right is currently extended to all other people; I still have the right to not be imprisoned without charge even if someone in a third world dictatorship is being denied that right)

Cornelius: “I’m afraid that's not good enough Derick. Your "right to life" is not a "right to life" if it doesn't extend to all people. This is how evolutionists think. You can try to whitewash it all you want, it won't work.”

Do you use ‘you’ in the royal sense to mean ‘pro-choicer’ rather than me specifically? I haven’t actually stated my position yet, and to repeat, I do grant the right to life to all people. I wasn’t objecting to your categorization of abortion as ‘wrong’ or even ‘murder’, I was objecting to the fact that you were portraying pro-choicers as categorizing abortion as ‘murder’ and being perfectly fine with it anyway.

And you didn’t answer my question: Do you genuinely not see it as disingenuous to portray a group of people you disagree with as having the opposite viewpoints as their expressed viewpoints? Do you not see it as disingenuous to paraphrase someone as asking for her right to murder to not be abridged when A, she wasn’t even asking about abortion, and B, she would almost certainly say that no one has a right to murder?

I do extend the right to life to all people. Where did I indicate otherwise?

Where you legitimized the abortion position. You complained that abortion is not tantamount to murder because abortionists do not hold the right to life to extend to the unborn. IOW, the right to life is relative to people's opinion about you, and what rights you deserve, rather than being a genuine right.

Me: “I do extend the right to life to all people. Where did I indicate otherwise?”

Cornelius: “Where you legitimized the abortion position.”

And where did I do that? And what do you mean by ‘legitimize’? Do you mean ‘defend’? I haven’t done that. Do you mean ‘acknowledge that people who are pro-choice exist?’ I have done that. To repeat, I have not stated my position on abortion, let alone advocated for it, or defended it in any way. I think you either haven’t read what I’ve written carefully, or you’re again intentionally misrepresenting people who (you think) disagree with you.

“You complained that abortion is not tantamount to murder because abortionists do not hold the right to life to extend to the unborn.”

No, I haven’t claimed that abortion isn’t murder, I’ve claimed that people who are pro-choice don’t view it as murder. They may or may not be correct in their evaluation, but that is their evaluation! It’s like what I wrote to Robert:

Me: “Correct. Or, technically, you can say it’s murder, you just can’t say that they consider it murder. I don’t see why Cornelius and some other pro-lifers seem to have a hard time grasping this.”

It’s like you can’t tell the difference between these two statements:

“Pro-choicers advocate an action that is by my evaluation, murder.”

“Pro-choicers advocate an action that is by their evaluation, murder.”

I find it very hard to believe that you don’t understand that those two sentences don’t mean the same thing, that’s why I’m (repeatedly) asking you: Do you not realize that you are misrepresenting the pro-choice viewpoint, or do you not care? (If the former, are you prepared to say: “While I believe that abortion is murder, I realize that not everyone else does as well, and I apologize for portraying them as doing so; while they are advocating something I consider murder, they are not advocating something they consider murder.”) It’s compounded by the fact that you’re putting ‘murder’ into the mouth of someone who wasn’t even talking about abortion; someone who was asking why her representative was trying to make it harder for lower income women in her area to have access to birth control and cancer screenings. But who can be bothered to get the facts right when the story’s so good?

“You complained that abortion is not tantamount to murder because abortionists do not hold the right to life to extend to the unborn.”

In addition to not being what I said, I don’t follow what you’re saying here. If the right to life does not extend to the unborn, then abortion would by definition not be murder. If the right to life should be extended to the unborn, but it is being erroneously withheld, it is still not automatically murder by virtue of being homicide. (A homicide could be murder, but it is not automatically (tantamount to) murder.)

[One important clarification: generally, pro-lifers consider abortion at all stages of development morally impermissible, and they should therefore all be legally impermissible, with exceptions (often, but not always) for cases where the mother’s life is in danger or, (sometimes, but not always) the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. However, pro-choicers generally concentrate on whether or not abortions should be legally permissible, and it is not universally agreed upon that all abortions should be, merely that at least ones before a certain point of development should, or in any case of risk to the mother’s life.]

DC: Generally, no one who is in favor of allowing abortions (at whatever point of development) considers those abortions ‘murder’. That label is almost exclusively used by the pro-birth camp. People who are pro-choice aren’t pro-choice because they’re ok with murder, they’re pro-choice because they don’t see abortions *as* murder. If you know the above, then you’re extremely disingenuous in the post. … Everyone I’ve ever talked to about the subject has generally agreed on the concept of right to life, (in the negative sense, at least) no matter their worldview - Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jewish, or other. The question isn’t “Does a right to life exist?” but rather, “To what does the right to life extend to?”

CH: I'm afraid that's not good enough Derick. Your "right to life" is not a "right to life" if it doesn't extend to all people. This is how evolutionists think. You can try to whitewash it all you want, it won't work. Right to life means it extends to all people, not just to certain people who fall into the currently favored category.

DC: I do extend the right to life to all people. Where did I indicate otherwise?

CH: Where you legitimized the abortion position. You complained that abortion is not tantamount to murder because abortionists do not hold the right to life to extend to the unborn. IOW, the right to life is relative to people's opinion about you, and what rights you deserve, rather than being a genuine right.

DC: In addition to not being what I said, …

You characterized the question of whether the right to life extends to the unborn, as a legitimate question. You contended that it shouldn’t be labeled as “murder” because they don’t consider it murder.

I don’t follow what you’re saying here. If the right to life does not extend to the unborn, then abortion would by definition not be murder. If the right to life should be extended to the unborn, but it is being erroneously withheld, it is still not automatically murder by virtue of being homicide. (A homicide could be murder, but it is not automatically (tantamount to) murder.)

One of the fruits of evolution is the continued discrimination against the unborn. The science, OTH, is clear and unequivocal. There is no question here, and legal decisions to the contrary are pathetic exercises in mental gymnastics trying to prove the absurd. Ideas have consequences, and the fact that evolutionists do not consider abortion to be murder does not change the scientific facts.

Cornelius: You characterized the question of whether the right to life extends to the unborn, as a legitimate question.

What? Of course “Does the right to life extend to the unborn?” is a legitimate question. You acknowledge that it is a legitimate question, when you answer it with “Yes.” I don’t actually understand what you mean. What makes it an illegitimate question? It seems you’re implying it’s illegitimate because you think the answer is obvious. Is the question “Is the earth flat?” an illegitimate question just because almost everyone agrees the answer is ‘no’? This is an odd pattern I’ve noticed in conversations with other pro-lifers, this idea that the answer to “when does personhood begin?” isn’t just obvious, but that the question itself shouldn’t be allowed to be asked in the first place. It’s bizarre.

CH: “You contended that it shouldn’t be labeled as “murder” because they don’t consider it murder.”

I did no such thing. How many times do I have to say this? In fact, I’ve said the opposite several times:

Me, to Robert: “…technically, you can say it’s murder, you just can’t say that they consider it murder.”

Me, to you: “I wasn’t objecting to your categorization of abortion as ‘wrong’ or even ‘murder’, I was objecting to the fact that you were portraying pro-choicers as categorizing abortion as ‘murder’ and being perfectly fine with it anyway.”

For reasons that we may or may not get into, I actually wish more pro-lifers would openly label abortion ‘murder’.

I’m fine with you labeling it murder. I’m not fine when you say that other people label it murder, when they unequivocally don’t. If you know that they don’t, but say they do anyway, that’s called “lying”. I’m not objecting to your criterion for personhood (yet), I’m objecting to your misrepresentation of the opposing position.

For like the dozenth time, I haven’t objected your position on abortion, I’ve objected to the title and content of your post, which mischaracterizes the pro-choice position on abortion. (and it does so via a mischaracterization of what was actually said in the video in the first place.)

I missed that. Where was there a defense of the pro-life view? I saw some non-sequiturs and some misrepresentations, but I missed the defense.

“abortion is a intellectual contention and not a moral one for almost all peiople.”

I know someone who disagrees with you. It’s you, from 2 seconds in the future, in the next sentence:

“(although i think Satan is behind the deception of pro-choicers but still they act out of moral conviction)”

“Person” is a moral and legal category. “Human” is a biological category. Is everything that is ‘human’ also a ‘person’?

“i think Christians, protestant or catholic, are more persuaded the fetus is a child at conception because of the opinion of the soul existing and existing at conception.yet pro-lifers would say no to this and stress the biological evidence for the fetus being a kid already.”

Are you suggesting that “Christians who believe that a fetus is a child at conception” aren’t generally ‘pro-lifers’? That the first group isn’t contained within the second, and that they’re at odds with each other?

“its hard for a pro-choicer to see a child has already arrived in a bedroom after the couples successful sex leading to conception.”

Yep, at least without a (very invasive) microscope. It’s even harder to see when you know what the word ‘child’ means.

“by now the pro-choice side should have to basae their position on a complete rejection of the humanity of the fetus. they should not still be saying freedom of body control.”

The pro-life side has to demonstrate two things in order to conclude that abortion is always wrong: 1: A zygote is a person at all stages of development, AND 2: One person’s right to be kept alive outweighs another person’s bodily sovereignty. It has to be both. Conversely, the pro choice side has to demonstrate EITHER that a zygote is not a person at all stages of development, or that one person’s bodily sovereignty can outweigh someone else’s right to be kept alive. So, yes rejecting the personhood is one way to go about making the pro-choice case, but it is not the only way.

“We should not say its murder because they don't mean to as they don't believe its a child yet.”

Correct. Or, technically, you can say it’s murder, you just can’t say that they consider it murder. I don’t see why Cornelius and some other pro-lifers seem to have a hard time grasping this.

“We should be the dominant ones in insisting its about the fetus humanity.”

Don’t just insist. Demonstrate. Why is a fetus a person?

“in fact it really does come down to the matter of the human soul.”

Ah, splendid. You’ve discovered a way to detect the presence of human souls. Please share. Well, I *assume* you’ve discovered a way to detect them, otherwise, what standing do you have to tell someone that they should not have an abortion based on the fact that the fetus has a soul?

“in fact it really does come down to the matter of the human soul. Both sides try to say thats not the point.yet its a point.”

Pro-lifers generally try to avoid the topic of the soul in the discussion because most realize that since we don’t live in a theocracy, we don’t base our laws on religious doctrines. Some avoid the soul by dishonestly pretending that their reasons for opposing abortion are ‘secular’. (even though they never seem to be able to give this secular rationalization.) However, sometimes I do come across honest people such as yourself, who freely admit that your pro-life position is informed primarily by your belief in the soul.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/